Can you see him now, Backass?
And, I mentioned elsewhere that this "footage" as I called it is that used by Ed Chiarini, and he didn't identify the source of it. Therefore, I don't know the source of it, even though it is the most useful and informative footage of the Oswald shooting that there is. Here is Chiarini's video, which I hesitate to put up because of certain claims that he makes.
And, when I speak of finding the Beers photo in a film, I don't mean finding it exactly. I mean finding the frame that corresponds to it, with recognition of, and consideration for, the angular difference. And that's why I spoke of finding the frame that aligns with it, that corresponds to it, which is perfectly legitimate English, to those competent in the language.
So, it causes me to think about just how stupid YOU are.
And regarding the ability to locate the film frames that correspond to photographs, I already have an impressive track record. I'm the one who discovered that the Moorman photo does NOT correspond to Z-315, as the "experts" claim, but was taken earlier than that, around Z-308, which was before the fatal head shot. Precision isn't possible with the Zapruder film, for multiple reasons, but, I found the specific frame of the Muchmore film that corresponds to the Moorman photo.
So, that's what I did, and it concerns JFK's assassination in Dealey Plaza, yet, you said I wasn't even interested. The one exercising in total stupidity is YOU, Dipshit.
Now, I'll address this 1940s-style newsreel which you lied about:
It's showing you the footage, but then, it jumps from this frame, which is definitely part of the footage:
It's a very sudden jump, and the two are not connected. The former was part of the moving film- the action. The above frame was NOT. It's a sleight-of-hand trick.
But, I added some light to the former one, and what you see, if you look closely, is his left hand, and it is down. His left arm is NOT slapped up on his chest.
Look how black his sweater looks below his collar. There is no arm slapped up there. The other is bull shit. It is a sleight-of-hand trick. They cinched them together to make them look like they are continuous, but they are NOT.
It all happens within the 41 second mark of the newsreel. It jumps so fast from the footage to the still frame that it is meant to look like the latter is part of the footage, but it is not. And, it happens much, much faster than Oswald could possibly have moved his arm. And that's especially true considering that he was shot (or supposedly shot) and that Graves was restraining his upper arm. It is a sleight-of-hand trick that is actually very conspicuous to an intelligent observer. But, of course, Backes fell for it: hook, line, and sinker.
It is NOT a case of just pausing the film, you brainless fool. They want you to think that, but it's only because you are stupid that you do. It's a trick. They are conning you, you moron.
And the video that you claimed shows the muzzle flash was the exact same video as the first one, which does NOT show it.
Backes claims to know that this is the muzzle flash:
Here is what the muzzle flash from a Colt Cobra actually looks like:
And remember that bullets travel pretty fast. By the time you see the muzzle flash, the bullet has hit the target. And in this case, it was a contact shot. So, let's look again at Oswald.
There isn't the slightest sign that he has felt anything. And look at Graves, who looks like he's smiling.
How could that shot have gone off already without him or anyone else in the photo, including Oswald, reacting?
Backes, you are SO STUPID, you're like the 8th Wonder of the World for being so stupid. It is truly a marvel and a wonder that you could be as stupid as you are. You don't have a brain; you just have a dank sponge between your ears. But go ahead; keep blogging. Show the world how stupid you are.